Why can't we all just get along?
JB in record setting cold Cincy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Cc: "Dan Warner" <dwarner@electrorent.com>; "Lee Kennedy"
<leekenn@pacbell.net>; "Mike Cook" <beauty1@hughes.net>; "Mike Manghelli"
<mmanghel@hughes.net>; "Keith Turk" <kturk@ala.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: mazda rotary engine factor
> To all,
> I would like to publicly apologize to Gary Allen if I
> insulted him it was not the point of the message that was
> sent.. I was a pleading for some understanding on the
> physics of how something really works.. No more and no less.
> I have not included him in the reply here as he asked not to
> be included in anymore of the crap from a 'Hot Shot Wanna-be
> engineer' his words not mine.. All I can say is this 'Hot
> Shot Wanna-be engineer' has to get back to work on the next
> pile of designs that have to be ready for the 24hrs of
> Daytona where his crap has won many many times.... If any of
> the rules committee people think what i want to accomplish
> has any merit and thinks that it might be able to be done
> this year let me know. I am sure there are other racers that
> want the same goal for the rotary engine factor. They have
> e-mailed both me and this list and signed requests for a
> rule change.
> Gary's reply does just beg the answer to more question
> though.. What non technical issues go in the rule books or
> what non technical things are considered to go into a book
> of technical specifications? What I had envisioned during a
> rules meeting was that all the members of the committee read
> or listened to the presentation of a requested change of the
> rules. And after pointed discussion of all the merits and
> flaws in the request voted according to the facts
> presented...Have I missed anything here?
> Your pal,
> Wanna-be Engineer
> {no sig file detected Windows will now reboot}
>
>
> Gary Allen wrote:
> >
> > The SCTA has been making rules for lakes racing for over 50 years and
they
> > have evolved the process into a multi-level review procedure by a
relative
> > large number of lakes racers that have much more experience than I have.
> > The process tends to assure any rules changes have been fully reviewed
and
> > are in the best interest of the lakes racers overall. In most all
cases,
> > changes are not just based on technical issues but also on other
> > non-technical issues. The last thing they will do is let some Hot Shot
> > Wanna-be engineer dictate to them a rule change - just doesn't get very
far.
> > However, you are welcome to take your best shot by submitting your
requested
> > change in writing to the SCTA/BNI office for consideration next November
and
> > we'll see how far it gets.
> > Don't send me anymore of the crap though - I'm just not interested.
> > Gary Allen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> > To: "Gary Allen" <gallen@relia.net>
> > Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>; "Dan Warner" <dwarner@electrorent.com>;
> > "Lee Kennedy" <leekenn@pacbell.net>; "Mike Cook" <beauty1@hughes.net>;
"Mike
> > Manghelli" <mmanghel@hughes.net>; "Keith Turk" <kturk@ala.net>
> > Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 5:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: mazda rotary engine factor
> >
> > > Are rules in SCTA based on fact or opinion then ? As you say
> > > you are standing by your opinion rather than the facts. Your
> > > opinion is based on total volume not swept volume per rev..
> > > I fear you have them mixed up. IN your opinion I also take
> > > it you feel that FIA and SCCA have no clue what they are
> > > doing then. I am sure they based their rules on sound
> > > engineering principles and SCTA chooses not to, is that your
> > > opinion? How does one get a vote in the opinion poll then?
> > > Why is everyone else so quiet on this matter also? I am
> > > sorry if you or anyone takes this as a flame but I am an
> > > engineer, and have spent my whole adult life racing
> > > professionally cars, bikes, boats and most anything with an
> > > IC engine. I base all decisions on facts and not opinions. I
> > > have learned a long time ago you can not solve any thing
> > > until you know how it works in the first place. I do suspect
> > > you do not know how this engine really woks to be honest and
> > > are only looking at the surface of the problem. As an aside
> > > to all of this i don't really have any love affair with
> > > rotary engines, but in fact saw a rule that was unfair and
> > > misinformed within the structure of the SCTA rules and
> > > thought if brought to light with good engineering principles
> > > that it might be changed to be in line with what the rest of
> > > the informed racing community also sees as being fair and
> > > correct. It is a matter than would put a greater value to
> > > every SCTA record and accomplishment as it aligns SCTA with
> > > the rest of the racing world and makes things easier to
> > > compare as far as relative accomplishment, degree of
> > > difficulty, and merit in the world community. Does SCTA
> > > have any interest in this at all? My personal first guess
> > > on this is, probably not.... Oh well I anxiously await the
> > > response from the rest of those CC to this message to see if
> > > all decisions are based on fact or opinion.
> > > Dave Dahlgren
> > >
> > > Gary Allen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I stand by my opinion. The best method for equating the engines is
> > swept
> > > > volume and 3X best represents the swept volume of the rotary engine.
> > > > GA
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> > > > To: "Gary Allen" <gallen@relia.net>
> > > > Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>; "Dan Warner"
<dwarner@electrorent.com>;
> > > > "Lee Kennedy" <leekenn@pacbell.net>; "Mike Cook"
<beauty1@hughes.net>;
> > "Mike
> > > > Manghelli" <mmanghel@hughes.net>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:43 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: mazda rotary engine factor
> > > >
> > > > > Gary thanks for replying.
> > > > > The two strokes I agree on completely no question on that.
> > > > > Displacement X 2 as they process twice as much air and fuel
> > > > > as a 4 stroke engine of equal displacement in 2 revs. I had
> > > > > brought this up with Dan Warner a long while ago on this
> > > > > group. But I fail to understand your logic on the rotary.
> > > > > From what i can see your logic is not based on facts at all.
> > > > > It is based on what it looks like rather than how it works.
> > > > > The engine sizes have been historically based on 4 cycle
> > > > > piston engines. That infers that it is the amount of air and
> > > > > fuel that can be processed in 2 revs as this is typical. had
> > > > > you picked the amount of air and fuel that can be processed
> > > > > in 1 rev then you would have had cylinders left over over.
> > > > > had you picked 3 revs you would have been short cylinders.
> > > > > Is an engine that processes 175 cu in of air and fuel in 1
> > > > > rev with 4 cylinders not done yet, the same as a 350 cu in
> > > > > engine in 2 revs and a 525 that processes all the air and
> > > > > fuel in 3 revs? I suspect they are as they are all 350 cu in
> > > > > engines using the standard displacement per 2 revs.. It is
> > > > > just a matter of how you measure them and the only fair
> > > > > yardstick is how much air and fuel in a given # of revs.
> > > > > Just like it is miles per hour and feet per minute and
> > > > > gallons per hour so is displacement per # of revs. Otherwise
> > > > > there is no comparison at all. If you get a fuel pump do you
> > > > > as for a 100 gallon pump or do you ask for a 100 gallon PER
> > > > > HOUR pump???? Is your car is going 150 miles or is it going
> > > > > 150 miles per hour.... The relationship of displacement per
> > > > > 2 revs has always been inferred and not written out. I am
> > > > > asking for finish writing it out. No more and no less. It
> > > > > all seems very logical to me and ought to to everyone else.
> > > > > I think you have to compare things that are dynamic in a
> > > > > dynamic situation not a static one. What something seems
> > > > > like while stationary has little to do with how it behaves
> > > > > dynamically.
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words.....
> > > > > What you are saying is, if I understand correctly, the
> > > > > rotary is like a 6 cylinder because it has 6 faces total
> > > > > from the 3 rotors. But in only has 2 firings per rev. That
> > > > > means it takes 3 revs to fire them all. Well I have a 4
> > > > > cylinder engine that has 500 cc per cylinder. In 3 revs it
> > > > > fires 6 cylinders... 500 x 6=3000 cc. can I run against the
> > > > > F class records too then? If you do not compare engines by
> > > > > the amount of air and fuel that is processed per revolution
> > > > > then how do you compare them fairly? The simple thing about
> > > > > using that type of comparison is that it is all encompassing
> > > > > and no new rules have to made no matter what type of engine
> > > > > is run. It is the reason that SCCA and FIA use factors of X
> > > > > 2.1 and X 2.2 because that is a fair way to compare
> > > > > engines. It also matches by the way the relative amount of
> > > > > power from this type engine also. If I had a 1300 cc piston
> > > > > engine and a 1300 cc rotary I would expect the the rotary to
> > > > > make about twice as much power as the piston engine. A good
> > > > > 1300 cc piston engine makes about 220 hp. ask any of the
> > > > > bike guys i bet i am pretty close here. if anything a little
> > > > > conservative. A 1300 cc rotary makes about 360 hp. I have
> > > > > dyno sheets of some of the better ones on hand here. using
> > > > > those #'s it puts the rotary at a disadvantage at X2. If the
> > > > > rotary was truly twice as good it would make 440 hp. with
> > > > > your factor it would be expected to make 660 hp. Does this
> > > > > seem realistic? I suspect not! That is because the engine
> > > > > only has 2 firings per rev and the only place and time that
> > > > > any power came be generated is when there is a firing. The
> > > > > rest is a lot of monkey motion with parts going around and
> > > > > around but no power being generated. I hope to hear back
> > > > > from you on these comparisons.
> > > > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > > >
> > > > > Gary Allen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I diagree with your logic. I consider a 2 rotor, 3 lobe rotary
> > engine
> > > > the
> > > > > > equivilent to a 6 cylinder engine with 654 cc in each cylinder
for
> > the
> > > > total
> > > > > > displacement of 3924 cc. This is the total swept volume (key
term)
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > engine just like piston engines are measured. If your
recommended
> > logic
> > > > is
> > > > > > accepted, then I would expect the 2 stroke engines to be
measured as
> > 2
> > > > times
> > > > > > their actual displacement because they fire on every stroke if
one
> > is
> > > > to
> > > > > > only count number of firings per revolution. Engines that run
with
> > an
> > > > > > intermitant combustion cycle should be measured based on their
total
> > > > swept
> > > > > > volume, not on the number of firings per revolution. Rotary and
2
> > stroke
> > > > > > engines already have an advantage because they get more power
> > strokes
> > > > per
> > > > > > revolution that the 4 stroke engines.
> > > > > > Gary
> > Allen
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> > > > > > To: "Gary Allen" <gallen@relia.net>
> > > > > > Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 2:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: mazda rotary engine factor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I did not even mention in my last reply what the issue
> > > > > > > really is with the mazda rotary factor. It is currently
> > > > > > > engine displacement times 3 for the class it has to run in.
> > > > > > > This does not represent how the engine really works. it
> > > > > > > takes 3 rev to complete 1 cycle for 1 rotor face. Typical
> > > > > > > there are 2 rotors. This gives you 2 firings per rev the
> > > > > > > same as a 4 cylinder piston engine. Each rotor face is 654
> > > > > > > cc in a mazda 13b for example. That means that it processes
> > > > > > > in 2 revs 654 X 2 rotors X 2 revs=2616 cc of air and fuel.
> > > > > > > Exactly the same as a 2616 cc piston engine. Currently this
> > > > > > > engine has a rating of 1308 X 3=3924 cc. I suspect it had to
> > > > > > > do with the 3 faces on the rotors so everyone said just make
> > > > > > > it times 3 or that it looks like it ought to be X 3....This
> > > > > > > does not seem fair and reasonable to me. SCCA and FIA both
> > > > > > > use an engine displacement Factor of just over 2 to adjust
> > > > > > > the size of engines built like this when comparing them to
> > > > > > > piston engines. In essence treating them the same as every
> > > > > > > other 4 stroke engine by sizing them according to how much
> > > > > > > air and fuel can be processed in 2 revs.
> > > > > > > I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter
> > > > > > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gary Allen wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not on the landspeed list but did know about the rule
> > change
> > > > > > suggestion
> > > > > > > > from the rules meetings. It was rejected at the preliminary
> > meeting
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > there was no data supporting the change. I am not sure
where
> > the
> > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > even came from and also not familiar with the current factor
> > history
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > where it came from. Dan Warner is th best authority on the
> > subject
> > > > and
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > history.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What is the issue / question?
> > > > Gary
> > > > > > Allen
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> > > > > > > > To: <gallen@relia.net>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 1:33 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: mazda rotary engine factor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wes Potter suggested i drop you a line about the current
> > > > > > > > > dispalcement factor for Mazda Rotary engines.. Have you
been
> > > > > > > > > following the land=speed e-mail on this or do i need to
> > > > > > > > > forward a bunch of it to you?
> > > > > > > > > Dave Dahlgren
|